1.The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 2.6.2000 passed by the District Collector, Baroda, whereby, the land which was allotted to the petitioner on lease basis, is taken back after termination of the lease without payment of compensation as per the earlier order.
2.Heard Mr. Yajnik for Mr. Girish Patel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. SN Shelat, Ld. AG with Mr. IM Pandya, for the respondent. Mr. Yajnik submitted that the Collector had issued show cause notice and thereafter the hearing was given by the Collector. However, he submitted that from the affidavit in reply, on behalf of the State Government it is transpires that the Collector has taken the decision on the basis of the direction given by the State Government and therefore, Mr. Yajnik submitted that if the State Government was to decide the matter, the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity of hearing. On behalf of the respondent Ld. AG, Mr. Shelat, submitted that as per the procedure, after hearing is given by the Collector, the matter is forwarded to the State Government for taking appropriate decision and after receiving opinion and recommendation of the State Government, the Collector would pass the order accodingly. Therefore, no separate hearing is required to be given before the State Government. Mr. Shelat further submitted that there was law and order problem and lots of complaints were also received which are referred in the order dtd. 14.6.2000 and as a result thereof, the Collector found that there are breach committed by the petitioner and therefore, in the larger interest of public, it was decided to take back the land. Mr. Shelat, further submitted that, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Anil Mukim, Collector, Baroda, it is stated that the possession of the land in question is already taken over by the respondent on 16.10.1999 and therefore, the order dtd. 14.6.2000 which is impugned in the present petition has been implemented.
3.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also one of the public trust. After the decision dtd. 14.6.2000 is rendered by the Collector, the State Government can look into the matter by way of post decisional hearing. At this stage Mr. Shelat, submitted that the State Government would not object for giving the post decisional hearing to the petitioner.
4.Under the circumstances, Addl. Chief Secretary, revenue Department, Gujarat State, is directed to given post decisional hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the contentions available under the law and the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue Deptt., State of Gujarat, shall render the decision perferrable within a period of 3 months from the date of hearing of the petitioner.
5.Mr. Yajnik appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to take back all their belongings under the supervision of the officer, who may be deputed by Collector. Mr. Shelat for the State Government submitted that there cannot be any objection in allowing the petitioner for taking away their belongings. The petitioner shall make request to the District Collector in writing and the petitioner will be permitted to take back their belonging under the supervision of the officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector who may be deputed by the Collector for such purpose. D. S. permitted.
6.In view of the aforesaid, observations, no further order is required to be passed and the petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be not orders as to the costs.
[JAYANT PATEL, J] snt./